Bill Simmons is my pick for the best sports podcaster out there. And calling him a sports podcaster isn’t fair. While sports is his specialty, he also is entertaining when weighing in on pop culture.
And he’s a media innovator. A blogger-turned-ESPN star, Simmons ran the “Grantland” vertical for ESPN and was a driving force behind the network’s “30 for 30” series. He then went on to start “The Ringer” website and podcast network, which now features more than 30 podcasts.
In 2020, Simmons sold “The Ringer” to Spotify for around $200 million and has since become a Spotify executive. He is Spotify’s head of podcast innovation and monetization. He remains a podcast host, mostly on his self-named show. Admittedly, I’m a fan because I find his takes to be reasonable, entertaining, rarely mean-spirited, but also honest in their criticisms.
But no one has ever heard him go off like he did last week when royals Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, announced that their production company, Archewell, was ending their multi-year relationship with Spotify.
In 2020, Harry and Meghan signed a $20 million deal with Spotify. But, as CNN’s Issy Ronald wrote, “The partnership between Archewell Audio, the couple’s production company, and Spotify was intended to include numerous programs but, ultimately, only one series and a holiday special were produced.”
Variety’s Todd Spangler wrote, “According to a source familiar with the situation, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have wanted to move away from exclusive Spotify distribution to find a new home for their audio projects. Another source said that Spotify expected more content from Archewell Audio — noting that nearly three years after inking the pact, they have delivered only one series, essentially putting the overall deal in limbo.”
Whatever it was, Simmons wasn’t happy, and used his podcast to blast Harry and Meghan, calling them “grifters.”
During his podcast released last Friday, Simmons said, “I wish I had been involved in the ‘Meghan and Harry leave Spotify’ negotiation. ‘The (Expletive) Grifters.’ That’s the podcast we should have launched with them. I have got to get drunk one night and tell the story of the Zoom I had with Harry to try and help him with a podcast idea. It’s one of my best stories … (Expletive) them. The grifters.”
Now he said it in a playful way (you can hear the specific audio here), but it’s clear Simmons is not a fan. In January on a podcast, Simmons said he was embarrassed to share a podcast network with him.
“What does he do?” Simmons said. “It’s one of those things where it’s like, what’s your talent? Why are we listening to you? So you were born in a royal family and then you left. … You live in (expletive) Montecito and you just like sell documentaries and podcasts and nobody cares what you have to say about anything unless you talk about the royal family and you just complain about them.”
Meanwhile, these are strange times at Spotify. As Spangler wrote, “Spotify earlier this month announced it was laying off 200 employees as part of a restructuring of its podcast operations. That came after the exit earlier in the year of Dawn Ostroff, chief content and advertising business officer, who previously headed Spotify’s podcast business.”
However, Spangler added, “The looming end of Archewell Audio’s pact with Spotify is unrelated to the podcast group’s restructuring, a source familiar with the situation said.”
Best to ignore
Speaking of Spotify, Twitter is aflutter with this whole Joe Rogan-Robert Kennedy Jr. soap opera. Rogan had Kennedy, a presidential hopeful, on his popular podcast.
Vice’s Anna Merlan wrote, “The conversation was an orgy of unchecked vaccine misinformation, some conspiracy-mongering about 5G technology and wifi, and, of course, Rogan once again praising ivermectin, an ineffective faux COVID treatment.”
Then it turned into Rogan trying to get a noted doctor to debate Kennedy. Then Elon Musk chimed in to support that idea. Then Mark Cuban weighed in, heavily criticizing Rogan and Musk in a lengthy Twitter statement. Cuban wrote, “Joe, you and @elonmusk’s @twitter are the mainstream online media and your platforms have become everything supposedly wrong with MSM. You are driven by self interest. Just like the MSM always has been accused of. And you both have earned that right. You busted your (rear ends) to be great at what you do and earned all you have accomplished. But don’t lie to yourselves and all of us and tell us you are different. You aren’t.”
Normally, I find it best to ignore Rogan’s “hey I’m just asking questions” routine, especially when it leads to topics that even Rogan admits he isn’t proficient in.
But what about Rogan’s employer, Spotify?
Merlan wrote about that when talking about the episode that featured Kennedy. She wrote, “As RFK began his campaign by downplaying his anti-vaccine activism, the conversation represented a bit of a return to form. But the episode also conclusively demonstrates that Spotify, the platform that reportedly paid more than $200 million to host Rogan’s show, has completely given up on addressing his relentless torrent of medical misinformation, except in the most pallid and surface-level ways.”
Remembering a brave man
Daniel Ellsberg, co-defendant in the Pentagon Papers trial, talks to reporters after he testified in Los Angeles in 1973. (AP Photo, File)
Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and helped shift America’s perspective of the war in Vietnam, died last week from complications due to pancreatic cancer. He was 92.
The New York Times’ Robert D. McFadden summed up Ellsberg’s place in history by writing, “The disclosure of the Pentagon Papers — 7,000 government pages of damning revelations about deceptions by successive presidents who exceeded their authority, bypassed Congress and misled the American people — plunged a nation that was already wounded and divided by the war deeper into angry controversy. It led to illegal countermeasures by the White House to discredit Mr. Ellsberg, halt leaks of government information and attack perceived political enemies, forming a constellation of crimes known as the Watergate scandal that led to the disgrace and resignation of President Richard M. Nixon.”
It also set up a First Amendment showdown between the Nixon administration and The New York Times. By publishing the papers, the Times was accused by the government of espionage and jeopardizing national security. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 in favor of the Times and freedom of the press.
For more on the case and Ellsberg’s life, check out Ron Elving’s report for NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
Also, a couple of other Ellsberg-related items worth your time:
- The Washington Post’s Shera Avi-Yonah with “The night three Beatles showed up for Daniel Ellsberg’s birthday.”
- The New York Times’ Charlie Savage with “Why the Pentagon Papers Leaker Tried to Get Prosecuted Near His Life’s End.”
Two obits. Two publications. Same writer.
Silvio Berlusconi, the former Italian prime minister who died last week, shown here in 2018. (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia, File)
A Poynter Report reader pointed out an unusual occurrence last week when media mogul and former Prime Minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi died. Obviously, The New York Times and The Washington Post had obits about him. The Times obit was written by Jason Horowitz and Rachel Donadio. The Post obit was written by … Jason Horowitz.
Yes, the same Jason Horowitz.
So how did that happen?
For famous people, news outlets often have obits prewritten and ready to publish, with maybe a few updates, as soon as that person dies. Horowitz used to work at the Post and was there during each of Berlusconi’s four terms as prime minister (spanning 1994 to 1995, 2001 to 2006 and 2008 to 2011).
Horowitz then moved over to the Times, where he is the Rome bureau chief. So, in that role, he would be the natural reporter to write about Berlusconi’s death.
It just goes to show the lasting impact of Berlusconi. Horowitz tweeted last week, “Silvio Berlusconi has been dominant for so long in Italy that I wrote his obit for both the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost.”
How do the obits compare?
The Times story — which, I should remind you, was co-written with another reporter — called Berlusconi a “brash media mogul who revolutionized Italian television using privately owned channels to become the country’s most polarizing and prosecuted prime minister over multiple stints in office and an often scandalous quarter-century of political and cultural influence.”
The Post story, which Horowitz wrote alone, touched on the same themes, calling Berlusconi a “media mogul who dominated and divided his country for decades through a combination of showman charm, scofflaw bombast, and ruthless application of financial and political power.”
Each obit used some of the same words about Berlusconi, including “showman.” Both obits, assuredly, had to include similar details of Berlusconi’s life. But Horowitz did a good job of not plagiarizing himself, not even accidentally. And both obits showed superb writing skills.
The Times story was much longer, and superiorly written as compared to the Post story. That’s not to say the Post story wasn’t well done. It was. But the Times obit was exceptional, with lines such as:
- “His often outrageous, norm-warping and personally sensational approach to public life, which became known as Berlusconism, made him the most influential Italian politician since Mussolini. He transformed the country and offered a different template for a leader, one that would have echoes in Donald J. Trump and beyond.”
- About his power as a media mogul, Horowitz wrote, “The impact on the country’s culture is hard to overstate. By turns clownish and devious, optimistic and cynical, down-to-earth populist and stratospheric elitist, he was the fault line along which Italy broke.”
- “Mr. Berlusconi’s family-friendly campaigns often had the support of the church. His faith in the entrepreneurial spirit was unwavering. But with all that came an unapologetic hedonism that valued riches, beauty and the adoration of youthful vigor, as illustrated by the showgirl image of the women he promoted on his television channels and sometimes in government. What emerged was an updated playboy ideal that has left its mark on the imaginations, and aspirations, of countless Italians.”
Then again, the Post obit had some excellent passages, too, such as:
- “For his entire time in the public eye, Mr. Berlusconi — 5-foot-5, pudgy in build, creative in hairline and tangerine in complexion — towered over all other debate topics.”
- “For more than three decades, the diminutive colossus bestrode the narrow Italian peninsula, monopolizing the media, manipulating the levers of power, and capturing the imagination of friends and foes alike.”
- “Mr. Berlusconi’s preoccupation with self-preservation — against enemies real, imagined and manufactured — often took priority over the regular business of the state.”
What this all really shows is a reporter who really had superb insight into what he was writing about and used his deft writing skills to paint a complete picture.
Hot type
- The Washington Post’s Drew Harwell with “AI-generated child sex images spawn new nightmare for the web.”
- The New York Times’ Jonathan Abrams with “‘I Can’t Continue This Fight Any Longer.’ Why Tyrell Terry walked away from basketball, the millions of dollars that came with it and the identity he had spent his whole life building.”
More resources for journalists
- Sign up for Beat Academy (Now-Oct. 19) (Webinar series) — You’ll get tips, sources, inspiration and ideas to cover emerging newsroom beats. Enroll now.
- Executive Leadership Summit (Oct. 2023) (Seminar) — Apply by Aug. 14.
- Level Up: Critical Skills for Local Reporters (Oct. 3-Nov. 14) (Seminar) — Apply by Aug. 31.
Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.
The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.
